• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Is homosexuality wrong and/or unnatural?

  • Total voters
    128
mac said:
Can't. Lighting bolts..locusts....you'll have to take my word for it. Or show why it's "perfectly natural" despite having no benefit to the species.
Click to expand...

So only something that has direct benefit to the species is "natural"? By that definition, it would be "unnatural" and therefore illegal for a woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy to have sexual relations with someone, because procreation cannot occur, therefore it has no benefit to the species. Surely you can see the complete lack of logic in such an argument.
 
DiAnna said:
So only something that has direct benefit to the species is "natural"? By that definition, it would be "unnatural" and therefore illegal for a woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy to have sexual relations with someone, because procreation cannot occur, therefore it has no benefit to the species. Surely you can see the complete lack of logic in such an argument.
Click to expand...

mac makes up his own definitions to fit his agenda. He probably knows that they make no sense but won't admit it.
 
DiAnna said:
So only something that has direct benefit to the species is "natural"? By that definition, it would be "unnatural" and therefore illegal for a woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy to have sexual relations with someone, because procreation cannot occur, therefore it has no benefit to the species. Surely you can see the complete lack of logic in such an argument.
Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth. No where did I say homosexuality or ssm should be illegal because they are unnatural.
 
StillBallin75 said:
RM - I agree with some of what you've said. What I'm trying to get at is why, in terms of logic, why the issue of natural vs. unnatural is even relevant to gay rights and legislation. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

SB... By your post- providing sources, evidence, or facts to possibily support opinons have no necessity and renders debate an exercise in futility.

That is exactly the pattern that reigns dominate over controversial topics. There are those who insist on creating their on rules, which significantly departs from any hope of developing arguments. Without any of the aforementioned components, which are usually imperative in the course of debate, it's unlikely that the employment of logic is possible.

Logic and reason usually reveal themselves through discourse that contains enough credible elements of information, which allows for functional conclusions or links to related facts, theories, and other possible streams of information that lays the path for consuming and processing arguments in a coherent manner.
 
DiAnna said:
So only something that has direct benefit to the species is "natural"? By that definition, it would be "unnatural" and therefore illegal for a woman with a hysterectomy or a man with a vasectomy to have sexual relations with someone, because procreation cannot occur, therefore it has no benefit to the species. Surely you can see the complete lack of logic in such an argument.
Click to expand...
A lot of things would be unnatural like left-handedness, freckles, colorblindness, etc. It's a nonsensical definition.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Alright...how? Can you please answer that question with a straight answer?
Click to expand...

Simple. Gay sex cannot procreate, and it is therefore unnatural.

How many times do you plan on asking me the same question?
 
mac said:
:roll:


Again, homosexuality doesn't occur in great enough numbers to have any effect on the human species. No purpose.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell me then what is the percentage of orphans who have both parents who die? This is what should determine whether homosexuality, as somewhere between 2-8% of the population, could possibly be a part of serving the purpose of taking care of orphans. Now, I realize that not all orphans are those from that come from losing both parents to death, but it would be the most natural way (to me) to become an orphan.

I have some statistics and information on orphans.

Orphan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphans are a major concern in war and/or disease ravaged areas, and generally a lot less prevalent in 1st world countries, such as ours. In fact, we have a very small number of orphans here, especially in relation to our homosexual population. However, if you look at the total percentage of orphans in the world compared to all children, there are actually right around the same percentage of orphans, overall, as there are estimated homosexuals.

Again, this is all speculation and really, not evidence that homosexuality is meant to serve this purpose, but it is a possibility.
 
RamFel said:
Simple. Gay sex cannot procreate, and it is therefore unnatural.

How many times do you plan on asking me the same question?
Click to expand...

So I will ask you as I asked mac: If the only sex which is natural is sex in which procreation is possible, do you then consider it unnatural when a woman who has had a hysterectomy or a man who has had a vasectomy have sex? After all, both are sterile so procreation is not possible.
 
Redress said:
Wow!

Damn, why is it I have to have a busy day when something like this is said. Seriously, could you break down this train of thought a little bit? Marriage itself is an artificial construct, so what does being unnatural have to do with it?
Click to expand...

Well, since gay sex is unnatural, and since marriage is only men and women, that means that SSM is not a real marriage. Oh, sure, it can happen, but it is a pretend marriage granted only because of your efforts to get it passed. If it passes, then you're just being mollified.

You guys have to come down to earth. You'll never get "real" marriage!
 
TheGreatSandeno said:
Ehhh, no it doesn't.

But that's okay when you live in your own world with your own definitions.
Click to expand...

Sure it does!

OK, let's compare our arguments.

Your side - that based on the dictionary definition of the word "natural", you conclude that gay sex is natural.

My side - using basic biology, and showing how the purpose of sex is primarily for procreation, I show how gay sex (between same sex couples) fails consistently to produce children.

Looking at both arguments, and trying to determine which one has the most weight (dictionary, or basic biology) it's easy to see which side wins the debate.
 
RamFel said:
Sure it does!

OK, let's compare our arguments.

Your side - that based on the dictionary definition of the word "natural", you conclude that gay sex is natural.

My side - using basic biology, and showing how the purpose of sex is primarily for procreation, I show how gay sex (between same sex couples) fails consistently to produce children.

Looking at both arguments, and trying to determine which one has the most weight (dictionary, or basic biology) it's easy to see which side wins the debate.
Click to expand...

You mean dictionary, versus HORRIBLE LOGIC? How many times do you have to be told that just because something doesn't involve procreation doesn't mean it's unnatural?
 
RamFel said:
Simple. Gay sex cannot procreate, and it is therefore unnatural.

How many times do you plan on asking me the same question?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question, how, or why. How does gay sex not procreating make it unnatural? Just because something doesn't involve procreation doesn't make it unnatural. How many times do you intend on spewing the same bull**** that is completely devoid of logic?
 
RamFel said:
Simple. Gay sex cannot procreate, and it is therefore unnatural.

How many times do you plan on asking me the same question?
Click to expand...

Does that mean everybody over 45 can never have sex again?
 
RamFel said:
Well, since gay sex is unnatural, and since marriage is only men and women, that means that SSM is not a real marriage. Oh, sure, it can happen, but it is a pretend marriage granted only because of your efforts to get it passed. If it passes, then you're just being mollified.

You guys have to come down to earth. You'll never get "real" marriage!
Click to expand...

You do realize that you're talking to as many, if not more, straight people in favor of SSM than gays. Right?
 
StillBallin75 said:
You didn't answer the question, how, or why. How does gay sex not procreating make it unnatural? Just because something doesn't involve procreation doesn't make it unnatural. How many times do you intend on spewing the same bull**** that is completely devoid of logic?
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with how male genitalia and female genitalia kinda go together. Fit into each other. Without the need for belts and such.

Let's face it. Butts are made for taking a crap. Yes, they have other fun uses, but that one seems to be primary.
 
LuckyDan said:
I think it has to do with how male genitalia and female genitalia kinda go together. Fit into each other. Without the need for belts and such.

Let's face it. Butts are made for taking a crap. Yes, they have other fun uses, but that one seems to be primary.
Click to expand...

This is all true, Dan. None of it is a solid argument for making ass****ing unnatural, as this kind of behavior has been witnessed to exist IN NATURE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom